Talk:Wayne State University School of Social Work

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 March 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... I am in the process of continual edits --Spbrydges (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... adding additional information --Spbrydges (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social Work Degree Guide

Moved from User Talk:ElKevbo.

You recently removed a citation to the Social Work Degree Guide from the article on the Wayne State School of Social Work. You did so on the ground that the site was "thinly disguised click bait aimed entirely at advertisers." I have reviewed the Social Work Degree Guide and can't find any evidence to back up your assertion. Indeed, the site does not even appear to contain advertising. Can you provide evidence to support your claim that the site is "click bait aimed entirely at advertisers"? Cbl62 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's up to you - the editor who wants to add or retain a source - to establish that it's reliable. Second, the webpage has no information whatsoever about who controls it or their expertise. A legitimate site would probably include information about the authors and their experience and expertise. Third, the site is identical to dozens of others that exist exclusively to sale leads to colleges who want to advertise on the site; that's how institutions are commonly included in the websites' search engines or placed more highly on their search results. ElKevbo (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. You are the one who made the startling and serious assertion that the site was "thinly disguised click bait aimed entirely at advertisers".If you have no evidence to support your charge, have the honesty to admit you erred and withdraw the allegation. Cbl62 (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My review of the Social Work Degree Guide reveals no advertising or paid content whatsoever. Moreover, the site's content has been recognized as trustworthy and notable by mainstream news sources and academic institutions. See San Diego Union-Tribune,MassLive.com, Waco Tribune-Herald, The Independent, The Huffington Post, Catholic University (also here), University of North Carolina, University of Texas, Syracuse University,University of Louisville, University of Georgia, etc. Social Work Degree Guide was also cited as a source in this doctoral dissertation on the topic of quality is social work education. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the site is not reliable or that it is "clickbait" or that rankings are bought and paid for? Cbl62 (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's step through WP:RS. We require that sources have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The self-serving news articles you have cited don't speak to that at all; it's dreadfully common for university public relations employees to ignore their scholarly colleagues and write about anything at all that mentions their institution in a positive light. The website's "about" page says nothing about fact-checking or accuracy; in fact, it doesn't even tell us who writes the website or who owns it. The "contact us" page has one person's name with no description or additional information about his or her qualifications or background (so no reputation whatsoever much less one for "fact-checking and accuracy"). However, at least one of the rankings has an author listed with some claims of relevant experience. In summary this website doesn't appear to have any reputation much less one for "fact-checking and accuracy."

Let's double check our work by looking at the content on the website. It seems to generally fall into two categories. There are articles and there are lists. Many of the articles are reasonably well-written but without information about the author(s) and better sourcing it's difficult to know if they're accurate. The lists include the rankings which have a loose description of their methodologies. But dig into the rankings and you'll really see what's going on. Note that the rankings don't link directly to each institution; some go through affiliate links at highereducation.com, a website that focuses on enrollment and marketing and others require you to enter information on a form on socialworkdegreeguide.com (collecting and reselling information about prospective students is the primary way that these kinds of website makes money). So nothing helpful there in terms of the website's reputation.

Please note that I'm not saying that website is unreliable; as far as these kinds of website go - there are a lot of them! - this one is well-written and has a lot of interesting information that at first glance appears to be somewhat useful. And I don't begrudge the author(s) and owner(s) from trying to make money with the hundreds of affiliate links and collecting prospective students' information (presumably to sale to institutions who purchase that information to try to recruit those students). We all have bills to pay and food to buy. But that doesn't mean that the website is reliable and should be referenced in an encyclopedia.

My best guess is that this website is maintained by an enthusiastic practitioner, presumably the one identified as the author of the article noted above. So at best this is a self-published source which means that it's only reliable when "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." We don't even know who the author is much less have evidence about their expertise and publishing record so this source doesn't seem to be reliable. That a few journalists and several public relations employees have used this website as a springboard to promote a college or university is weak evidence about the site's reliability; we need sources that directly address the reputation of the site itself. ElKevbo (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but there is no evidence at all of "pay for play" or paid content on the SWDG web site. And, your "best guess" is just that, a "guess". In assessing source reliability, we ought not be governed by guesses or hunches. Rather, one of the key objective measures of reliability is WP:USEBYOTHERS. Here, the examples above are part of a fairly extensive body where respected news outlets and universities rely upon and cite the findings of SWDG. Such reliance by "accepted, high-quality reliable sources" indicates that the source has a sufficient quantum of reliability for purposes of WP:RS. Cbl62 (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's naive to consider the marketing publications of universities "accepted, high-quality reliable sources." The other sources you cited above are also quite weak with many only mentioning this website in passing and others clearly written using the website's own press releases (a common tactic for some journalists who may lack ethics, time, or knowledge of the beat they're assigned).

Other than the (quite weak) sources you have listed, you haven't presented any evidence that this source has the standards and practices that we associate with reliability. Do you have additional evidence? ElKevbo (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I provided, including major newspapers like The Independent, The Huffington Post, and the San Diego Union-Tribune, as well as multiple respected universities, are plainly reliable (not quite weak as you opine) sources. There are many other examples that are retrieved by simple google and other searches. These sources deem SWDG's findings to be credible and noteworthy. Precisely the kind of usage that is contemplated by WP:USEBYOTHERS. Cbl62 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ignorant of how public relations works, you're willing to edit war to retain this poor source despite knowing nothing about it except that a handful of self-interested promoters and uninformed journalists have mentioned it in passing, and this is such a low visibility topic that no other editors care. So I'm dropping the issue and removing this article from my watchlist. ElKevbo (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply trying to apply the WP:RS standards (including USEBYOTHERS) objectively and dispassionately. Your assertion that journalists at major news outlets are "uninformed" simply because they cite a source you don't like appears rather circular and inconsistent with USEBYOTHERS. Cbl62 (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]